Poll Suggestion: Which of these movies shouldn't have won an Oscar?

  • 1
  • Idea
  • Updated 3 weeks ago
  • (Edited)
Which of these movies shouldn't have won an Oscar?
Oscar winning movies of this century.
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls042449187/
Photo of Ayshik Rahman Khan

Ayshik Rahman Khan

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 1 month ago

  • 1
Photo of cinephile

cinephile

  • 339 Posts
  • 559 Reply Likes
the shape of water
Photo of dgranger

dgranger

  • 2156 Posts
  • 1715 Reply Likes
Sorry but “American Beauty” (1999) doesn’t belong on this list because this is the 21st century, and the year 1999 is the last year of the 20th century.
Photo of albstein

albstein

  • 614 Posts
  • 1246 Reply Likes
American Beauty won the Oscar in 2000. However, the 21st century officially begins on January 1, 2001.
Photo of Dan Dassow

Dan Dassow, Champion

  • 12414 Posts
  • 12359 Reply Likes
albstein wrote:
However, the 21st century officially begins on January 1, 2001.
Hence, Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke named the film '2001: A Space Odyssey", not '2000: A Space Odyssey".
Photo of dgranger

dgranger

  • 2156 Posts
  • 1715 Reply Likes
albstein, no matter how you dispute the particular aspects of my point, you had actually re-enforced my point.
Ayshik Rahman Khan specifically had said Oscar winning movies of this century.
Both of our arguments clearly agree and establish that “American Beauty” doesn’t not belong to THIS CENTURY. Even though, the Oscar ceremony always take place in January or February, it always awards the films of the previous year. Therefore, “American Beauty” which was released in 1999, was awarded the “Best Picture of 1999 Oscar award” in a ceremony took place in the year 2000, and it still doesn’t make it as a best picture award winner of this century.
And underneath your reasoning about the new century starting on January 1, 2001, “Gladiator” (2000), doesn’t belong on this list ether.
Photo of ElM.

ElM.

  • 3094 Posts
  • 3154 Reply Likes
I'd go even further by taking the 'historian' perspective, the 21st century (war on terror, global conflicts, social/economical issues and the whole chain of events etc.) began on September 11, 2001 so any movie released before should be disqualified.

Gladiator? So "20th century" it's almost funny!
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6571 Posts
  • 8121 Reply Likes
In reply no. 19,670,443, I made an attempt to explain the nuance in detail.
Photo of ElM.

ElM.

  • 3094 Posts
  • 3154 Reply Likes
I also think it's a generational thing, whoever lived or remembered the turn of the century and was old enough to grasp the concept of centuries/millennium/decade etc. must have had at least one discussion about "when the 21st century starts". I had such heated debates with friends, cousins... at the end, when 2000 and then 2001 came in, we all stood in the same ground.

Not saying anyone born after 2000 or in the late 90s wouldn't be able to get the nuance, but the little mistake is more likely to be made by someone who never told about this in the first place.
Photo of rubyfruit76

rubyfruit76, Champion

  • 3831 Posts
  • 4049 Reply Likes
Year 0 never existed; 1 BC was followed with 1 AD. Therefore, every century starts with the year ending with 1, so this century started in 2001. 
Photo of rubyfruit76

rubyfruit76, Champion

  • 3831 Posts
  • 4049 Reply Likes
Year 0 never existed; 1 BC was followed with 1 AD. Therefore, every century starts with the year ending with 1, so this century started in 2001. 
Photo of ElM.

ElM.

  • 3094 Posts
  • 3154 Reply Likes
Which means that the first "decade" of the Christian calendar had only 9 years :)
(Edited)
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6571 Posts
  • 8121 Reply Likes
So to speak.
Photo of albstein

albstein

  • 614 Posts
  • 1246 Reply Likes
dgranger, you are right that the latter part of my statement reinforces your point. However, the wording of this poll suggestion is ambiguous and could also refer to movies that were awarded the Oscar in the 21st century.
Photo of ElM.

ElM.

  • 3094 Posts
  • 3154 Reply Likes
Yep it's tricky when you think about it, Casablanca is a 1942 film, but it was the Best Picture of 1943 which means that it was awarded in 1944, 2 years is no big deal but in the scale of World War II, two years is like an eternity.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6571 Posts
  • 8121 Reply Likes
None of them are undeserving of the award, since the award only tracks the "best" of a given year, and in some years, every eligible movie leaves much to be desired, meaning that the best will also leave much to be desired. Now, with that in mind, maybe the focus of the poll should be on which winners should not have been nominated in the first place, maybe.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6571 Posts
  • 8121 Reply Likes
Even having stated the above, I feel that Star Wars should have beaten Annie Hall.
Photo of ElM.

ElM.

  • 3094 Posts
  • 3154 Reply Likes
You should specify that it's about the Best Picture Oscar. And maybe list the other nominees so we can have a clue.
Photo of ElM.

ElM.

  • 3094 Posts
  • 3154 Reply Likes
My vote would go for The Departed, and Scorsese is one of my favorite directors, but come on, let's call a spade a spade, it was a sympathy vote, nothing else. the film deserved a few nods for writing, editing, and maybe the Supporting acting, but as far as the thriller genre goes, it was no more transcendental than say a film like 1993 In the Line of Fire (which got these three Oscar nods, by the way and was much better) or even a classic like Lethal Weapon.

I look at the other nominees of 2006, and I see more deserving titles like Babel, Little Miss Sunshine or Letters from Iwo Jima, hell, I even see better and more daring pictures outside the Best Picture circle: Apocalypto, The Perfume, Pan's Labyrinth,  Stranger Than Fiction, Lives of Others, Children of Men... even Borat was more enjoyable.


Photo of rubyfruit76

rubyfruit76, Champion

  • 3831 Posts
  • 4049 Reply Likes
Hi Ayshik and welcome to the GS poll board. : )

My vote will be 'The Gladiator,' 'A Beautiful Mind,' or 'Green Book.' 

Please add a question to your intro., such as "Of the Oscar winning movies of this century, which film shouldn't have won for Best Picture?" 

And perhaps the title could be "Undeserving Oscar Winning Movies."
Photo of joe siegel

joe siegel

  • 102 Posts
  • 165 Reply Likes
My vote would go to Slumdog Millonaire, I do not say that I do not like it, Danny Boyle is a director whose films are almost always to my liking, but my favorite that year was Gran Torino and another great movie that Eastwood did the same year; Changeling
(Edited)
Photo of Pencho15

Pencho15

  • 1132 Posts
  • 878 Reply Likes

I think several of these pictures should not have won the Oscar, and in some cases I think they should not even be nominated:


Green Book - should not been nominated
The Shape of Water - should not have won
Argo - should not been nominated
The Artist - should not have won
The King's Speech - should not have won
The Hurt Locker - should not have won
Crash - should not been nominated
Chicago - should not have won
A Beautiful Mind - should not have won

In the case of Slumdog Millionaire it was probably the best nominated film, but should have lost to a non nominated film.